A really, really, REALLY bad idea – Giving the Internet to the U.N.

International Telecommunication Union, part of the United Nations (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Via Junkscience.com, comes this worrisome editorial from the Washington Times.

The new world order invades your computer

Imagine if everything you did online was subject to monitoring and control by the United Nations. Powerful authoritarian states, including China and Russia, are spearheading an effort to place the most potent information system in the world under centralized international control. They want the Internet to work with the same efficiency, speed and reliability as the U.N.

This week, Congress will consider legislation to amend the 1988 International Telecommunication Regulations to give the U.N. extraordinary powers over the Internet. In September, the authoritarian bloc submitted a proposal titled “The International Code of Conduct for Information Security.” In theory, it seeks to systematize and standardize the Internet and establish rules for maintaining cybersecurity. In fact, it will give the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) – a U.N. agency that oversees global telecommunications – vast new powers to regulate and control access to the Internet and information flow in cyberspace.

That Beijing and Moscow are backing the idea is enough to know it’s a bad one. The free flow of information has always been an enemy of thuggish regimes. To them, individual expression and the unlimited exchange of ideas – which the Internet has made possible for some oppressed people for the first time in history – must be stamped out. Such countries view the Internet as a vast intelligence operation, a means of collecting sensitive information on people and preventing freedom of expression through a sophisticated array of censorship tools.

WE SHOULD REMAIN UNIFIED IN OUR OPPOSITION TO UN/ITU REGULATION OF THE INTERNET.

Finally, all of us should be concerned with a well-organized international effort to secure intergovernmental control of Internet governance. Since being privatized in the early 1990’s, the Internet has historically flourished within a deregulatory regime not only within our country but internationally as well. In fact, the long-standing international consensus has been to keep governments from regulating core functions of

the Internet’s ecosystem.

Unfortunately, some nations, such as China, Russia, India, Iran and Saudi Arabia, have been pushing to reverse this consensus by giving the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) regulatory jurisdiction over Internet governance. The

ITU is a treaty-based organization under the auspices of the United Nations.32 As Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said last June, the goal of this effort is to establish “international control over the Internet using the monitoring and supervisory capabilities of the [ITU].”33

…

Today, however, several countries within the 193 member states of the ITU35 want to renegotiate the 1988 treaty to expand its reach into previously unregulated areas. A few specifics are as follows:

– Subject cyber security and data privacy to international control;

– Allow foreign phone companies to charge fees for “international” Internet traffic, perhaps even on a “per-click” basis for certain Web destinations, with the goal of generating revenue for state-owned phone companies and government treasuries;

– Impose unprecedented economic regulations such as mandates for rates, terms and conditions for currently unregulated traffic-swapping agreements known as “peering;”

– Establish for the first time ITU dominion over important functions of multi-stakeholder Internet governance entities such as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, the nonprofit entity that coordinates the .com and .org Web addresses of the world;

– Subsume under intergovernmental control many functions of the Internet Engineering Task Force, the Internet Society and other multi-stakeholder groups that establish the engineering and technical standards that allow the Internet to work; and

– Regulate international mobile roaming rates and practices. These efforts could ultimately partition the Internet between countries that on the one hand opt out of today’s highly successful, non-governmental, multi-stakeholder model to live under an intergovernmental regulatory regime, and on the other hand, those member states that decide to keep the current system. Such a legal structure would be devastating to global free trade, rising living standards and the spread of political freedom. It would also create an engineering morass.

Once control is handed over, how long do you think it will be before they move to shut down climate skeptic blogs critical of the UN’s IPCC?

Given that Russia & China for years operated State based media that was strictly controlled should raise alarms with all free societies. Independant Countries need to remain masters of their own destiny. Those that have defended free speech over hundreds of years need to vote against the proposed control of the internet.

The UN is not a government but is attempting to replace government with a bunch of unelected bureaucrats who are mainly cronies of various world despots or greatly influenced by powerful neighbors. We have entered a phase were regulation is taking the place of law. We have bureaucrats ruling by decree.
NO.

Embedded in the already signed treaty is a clause empowering the newly created Seabed Authority – an international body in which each of 160 nations has a vote (even if they are landlocked) – to take whatever steps it deems necessary to stop “marine pollution.” According to William C. G. Burns of the Monterey Institute of International Studies, the treaty contains a very expansive definition of pollution which could be read to include “the potential impact of rising sea surface temperature, rising sea levels, and changes in ocean pH as a consequence of rising levels of carbon dioxide in sea water.” Burns warns that this could “give rise to actions under the Convention’s marine pollution provisions” to reduce carbon emissions worldwide.

The Treaty, literally, tells us how to raise our children. And it would be legally enforceable in American courts under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. Only a constitutional amendment could supersede the “rights” it confers on children

International Criminal Court

Specifically, the leftists who are sponsoring the court wish to create a new crime of “aggression,” which is essentially going to war without the approval of the United Nations. If we submit to the court’s jurisdiction, our presidents and Cabinet officials could be prosecuted criminally for going to war without U.N. approval. This would, of course, give Russia and China a veto over our military actions.

Outer Space Code of Conduct

The code might inhibit or prohibit the United States from deploying anti-missile missiles on platforms in space, denying us the key weapon we need to counter Iranian, Chinese and North Korean missile threats.

Small Arms Control

The treaty would require each nation to adopt measures to stop exportation of small arms. It is easy to see how this could be a backdoor way to require national registration of all guns and to assert federal regulation over firearms. It would also require the registration of all ammunition to track its source once a gun is fired.

Most of these are not new, and were correctly never ratified by the US Senate. However, Obama and our mad Democrats are leaving us a farewell gift. The problem is these treaties have equal force as the Constitution, and can’t simply be abrogated. We might if we want to abandon global trade. Better idea: Shut down the UN. It’s just a hive of socialists and petty dicatators anyway.

We have that already in USA… It’s called Democrat-Complex Media. Thank goodness for the internet. It has been a huge thorn in their side. Who knows how much longer we’d have that kind of freedom of speech over the internet in USA.

Another indicator of why focusing merely on the scientific elements of CAGW misses the vast majority of what has been the real motivation behind it and all the subsequent variations on the theme which have been promoted as the crisis du jour. It has never been about science or the planet or even really about money. It has always been first and foremost about increasing the power and hegemony of the collectivist elites. The Congress and the FCC may be raising objections now, but does anyone suspect that if Obama gets another 4 years his administration will be a leading force in resisting these power grabs. BTW this is only one of a number of similarly aimed proposals including a UN arms proposal which if agreed to by our government would seriously endanger everyone’s Second Amendment Rights in this country. The promoters of gun control are just as disingenuous as the climate alarmists. They obviously care nothing about the victims of gun crime but are motivated by the knowledge that it is much more difficult to place a well armed populus under the boot heel of totalitarianism than one which has been successfully disarmed. Something Our Founders clearly recognized, which was the reason for the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution in the first place.

Some sort of International control of the Internet bad enough but have it as part of the UN is absolutely terrible. Look at Syria , Libyia etc –the UN cannot do what it was set up for ,properly so let it get it’s hands on anything else. Don’t forget that mess they call the IPCC !!

Just say NO!
In addition to the already mentioned issues of personal and national security, the suggested standardisation would inhibit technological development.
At present, different nations and companies can compete to develop and adopt new methods, systems and techniques which would gain them competitive advantage in operating the internet. A world-wide standardisation of the internet would remove all such competition, and it would require a world-wide agreement before any change could be adopted.
The internet as we know it would not have been developed and adopted as it is if this standardisation had existed from the internet’s start.
Richard

The UN is nothing but an old-boys club for dictators.
Maybe this, if they push hard enough, will get enough people in Western countries *aware* of that fact. It’s about time for a mass de-funding and expulsion for those useless busybodies.

Ask the Syrians how well the UN runs peace missions. This is the UN speciality,… about the Internet they know zero. Anything that Beijing and Moscow are backing is a really, really bad idea. The Internet would be like buying old copies of Pravda and Isvestia.

Now that the government has allowed the List to leak, would there be any significant difference if the UN took over?U.S. Government Releases List Of Words They Look For Online
The UN is the world’s largest dysfunctional organization. The real problem is that Congress may implement the UN’s “resolutions”.James Sexton: “Not going to happen. It would be political suicide for any imbecilic congressperson to vote for that madness.”
Reply:Hoser: “Embedded in the already signed treaty is a clause empowering the newly created Seabed Authority – … – to take whatever steps it deems necessary to stop “marine pollution.”
In other words, it becomes Law.

When the first amendment of the Bill of Rights was written, “the press” was a network of independant small town papers. Those who wrote it didn’t envision the MSM we have today. Now, that network they were familiar with is the blogs and message boards of the internet. Here in the US, we’ve seen what giving a bueracracy power where its regulations have the effect of Law. (Think USEPA.) We do not want to sign a treaty that would establish and give authority to a UN(fill in the blank) bueracracy of any kind, especially one that would come in conflict with our Constitution or our Bill of Rights.

Meh, I give it 25 minutes after the announcement for some kid in China/Tawian/Hong Kong/Russia/Tasmania to create a bypass. Oh and would that would mean that the UN would be ultimately responisble for all porn/gambling/Nigerian Scams/Dating agencies/Facebook/Twitter/betting/forums/illegal file sharing and phoney medicine pushers on the Interwebs?. Good, finally we can track them down and sue the pants off them. Lawyers form an ordely queue to the right thanks. 😉

I should add that treaties only need be approved by the Senate and the President. That dates back to when the Senate didn’t so much represent the people of the state but the governments of the states. The state’s government would then have to abide by the treaty. At that time, it was up to the states to decide how to select their respective senators.
The House of Representatives represented the people of all the states. That’s why tax bills and spending bills have to originate in the House. The people would be paying bills through their taxes.
So, yes, write your Congressman, but especially your Senator. (Obama could veto if the Senate passed the treaty, but does anybody here think he would?)

James Sexton says:
May 29, 2012 at 3:03 pmNot going to happen. It would be political suicide for any imbecilic congressperson to vote for that madness.
Bullshit, politicians would sell you into forced prostitution as long as it got them a vote or money for their re-election.

@ Hoser says:
May 29, 2012 at 3:13 pm
Most of these are not new, and were correctly never ratified by the US Senate. However, Obama and our mad Democrats are leaving us a farewell gift. The problem is these treaties have equal force as the Constitution, and can’t simply be abrogated. We might if we want to abandon global trade. Better idea: Shut down the UN. It’s just a hive of socialists and petty dicatators anyway.
********************************************************
Exactly. The question is: How committed are we? Remember the movie w/ Denzel Washington? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HLNawUg_3s . In this game the most committed wins.

If we did not have the internet, Agenda 21 would have already been fully implemented. Soooo, how do they fix that problem? Control the internet?
Just do a search it, but don’t use Google for they formally follow the cause now.
Albeit I really don’t like this guy, this was quite entertaining. I hope it pastes correctly from this tablet 🙂

Those are the two words (or a word and a number) to watch out for: Agenda 21.
It could just as easily be called “U.N. World Domination” or “U.N. World Government”.
As Douglas Adams said, “…be afraid, be very afraid”….
It’s not about climate, weather, windmills, CO2 or any pollutant/chemicals/etc. anymore,
it’s about control…
Maybe it’s also about time to start up a new internet (Catacombs V2.0 anyone?)…

“Once control is handed over, how long do you think it will be before they move to shut down climate skeptic blogs critical of the UN’s IPCC?”
Not too long. In my opinion, they want to stop people getting together on places such as WUWT where we share ideas, discuss issues, inform each other with links of enlightenment, (and occasionally say stupid things, I know I have). These online discussion are like meetings where people get together and discuss things except in the online world, it’s much slower. I don’t think they like this…
I don’t think anybody in the US government has the balls to actually try and control the internet given the outrage over SOPA and PIPA. So, how to get around this? Come up with some flimsy reasoning to give control to the UN and there ya go…
Can’t believe the Republican controlled congress is even looking at this.

The internet makes things too easy. If it was removed we’d have to strive for a replacement. We would have resolve, a desire to out manoever the forces of global and state repression.
Meanwhile I don’t care a tinker’s t*ss about the c**pheads who want to control me and my thoughts, they can’t win. We are too educated, empowered and embedded to be beaten.

From the Constitution:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
Does anyone doubt that with Supreme Court Judges such as Clinton and Obama have appointed that the phrase “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State” would be constued to mean the US Constitution and not the constitutions of the various states?
The greatest impact presidents have had on the US is in the judges they’ve appojnted.

George we already have unelected bureaucrats ruling by decree. Its called the EU, ask any Englishman what a good idea it has been to subvert Westminster to Brussels. Currently there is an Italian in charge of the “Industry” porfolio, a Spaniard in charge of “Competition” a Frenchman in charge of the “Internal “Market”” and a German in charge of Energy policy, hoo hoo you just can’t make this stuff up.

I disagree. Having work in telecomms most of my professional life, the ITU-T and its predecessor the CCITT have been force for good, standardising the morass of telecomms and bringing instant communications to the bulk of the third world. In fact, the ICAN and the DNS system are huge security problems right now and it needs to be fixed.

it’s only when the partisan blinkers come off that we will be able to defeat such power grabs:
21 May: Daily Caller: Trent Lott explains support for treaty he once said would create ‘UN on steroids’
Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott told The Daily Caller on Monday that he isn’t a hypocrite for lobbying in favor of a treaty he emphatically denounced as recently as 2007.
Lott said that he no longer believes the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea — also known as the Law of the Sea Treaty — would “cede our national sovereignty, both militarily and economically,” as he said five years ago when the issue was last brought before the Senate.
The treaty would grant the United Nations unprecedented taxing authority over American companies by transferring permitting and royalty payments currently made to the U.S. government for offshore drilling to the International Seabed Authority, a U.N.-created agency that would have the power to redistribute billions of dollars to other countries…
“Over time, circumstances change,” Lott told TheDC…
Lott said that he knows sitting Republican senators who support the treaty, but said, “I don’t want to identify them” because “they’re going to be savaged by The Heritage Foundation.”
Republican senators who have openly supported ratification include Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Arizona Sen. John McCain….http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/21/trent-lott-explains-support-for-treaty-he-once-said-would-create-un-on-steroids/

I wrote my Senator and my Congressman before I finished reading this… sent them this link and told them I was opposed to this idea. In the 65 year history of the UN, name one country where they have taken control, or one situation they have injected themselves into with a successful outcome. They are most successful at taking money from the US and partying with it.

kramer says on May 29, 2012 at 4:46 pm
“Once control is handed over, how long do you think it will be before they move to shut down climate skeptic blogs critical of the UN’s IPCC?”
Not too long. In my opinion, they want to stop people getting together on places such as WUWT where we share ideas, discuss issues, inform each other with links of enlightenment, (and occasionally say stupid things, I know I have). These online discussion are like meetings where people get together and discuss things except in the online world, it’s much slower. I don’t think they like this…
I don’t think anybody in the US government has the balls to actually try and control the internet given the outrage over SOPA and PIPA. So, how to get around this? Come up with some flimsy reasoning to give control to the UN and there ya go…
Can’t believe the Republican controlled congress is even looking at this.

Please, a clarification is in order I think: It is the US Senate that votes on treaties and it is the US House of Representatives only that is under Republican control. A not-too-spry (some would say senile) Harry Reid (former “Gaming Commissioner” from the state of Nevada) is Senate leader presently.
Citing the broad term ‘congress’ implies the House and the Senate, which are split between the two major political parties presently …
.

hmm…
“The problem is these treaties have equal force as the Constitution, and can’t simply be abrogated.”
and
“We do not want to sign a treaty that would establish and give authority to a UN(fill in the blank) bueracracy of any kind, especially one that would come in conflict with our Constitution or our Bill of Rights.”
and
“We do not want to sign a treaty that would establish and give authority to a UN(fill in the blank) bueracracy of any kind, especially one that would come in conflict with our Constitution or our Bill of Rights.”
I think what people are missing is that the Supreme Court of the United States still has jurisdiction over treaties, indeed, it is the sole arbiter of what is considered the supreme law of the land. That is its Constitutional job. Thus, if a treaty otherwise violated rights guaranteed by the Constitution (amendments included), any citizen could file a suit to have it struck down. Furthermore, the Congress can nullify any treaty via law as can any state or states should Congress fail to act (both subject to SCOTUS review as well, of course). Remember, the government of the United States answers to the states.
The lies regarding treaties and the United States are pushed by a) leftists that want one world government, b) those that are ignorant of the power of the Constitution, and c) those that simply wish to impose their societal beliefs on the US hoping to gain some measure of control over us.
Mark

__Jim: fortunately the “advice and consent” w.r.t. treaties is given a number for approval: two thirds, or 67 Senators. Anything that even smells of stepping on the Constitution is dead before it starts. It is likely, too, that the Senate will not be controlled by the same party come next year.
Mark

_Jim says:
May 29, 2012 at 5:43 pm
Please, a clarification is in order I think: It is the US Senate that votes on treaties and it is the US House of Representatives only that is under Republican control. A not-too-spry (some would say senile) Harry Reid (former “Gaming Commissioner” from the state of Nevada) is Senate leader presently.
Citing the broad term ‘congress’ implies the House and the Senate, which are split between the two major political parties presently …
I’ve always referred to Congress as meaning the HOR because senators are from the senate and Congressman and women come from the HOR which I refer to as congress. A bad habit I got into a long time ago…

What has the UN ever done, besides bring cholera to Haiti (and then deny it) and bring HIV to Cambodia. Massive fraud and waste, food for oil scandal. They promote Agenda 21, the most bizarre set of utopian ideas I have ever seen. If it wasn’t in writing and downloadable from the UN site itself I would have taken it for a hoax.
They have first world funding and third world standards.
Why do they continue to exist?

TheOldCrusader says:
May 29, 2012 at 3:15 pmhttp://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/science_and_maths_knowledge_makes_you_sceptical/
A US government-funded survey has found that Americans with higher levels of scientific and mathematical knowledge are more sceptical regarding the dangers of climate change than their more poorly educated fellow citizens.
======
Apparently climate scientists and the IPCC have much in common with the poorly educated.
[Moderator’s Note: Old Crusader’s comment and ferd’s response really should be directed here. Commenters are asked to please stay on topic and direct your comments to the appropriate thread. -REP]

The real problem is the thing called the “internet” is just interconnection protocols between a whole series of privately owned (REPEAT PRIVATELY OWNED) networks. The government does not own the internet and only in socialist countries where the telecoms are government held can any of this really be put into effect. In the US it would be in the courts for ever as a violation of the 4th amendment to the constitution. Since the government can not take away this private property without due process. Though after the Kelo decision that may not be a sure thing anymore.

I disagree. Having work in telecomms most of my professional life, the ITU-T and its predecessor the CCITT have been force for good, standardising the morass of telecomms and bringing instant communications to the bulk of the third world. In fact, the ICAN and the DNS system are huge security problems right now and it needs to be fixed.

Your final sentence pre-supposes that the only solution to ICAN and DNS problems are global agreements/standards organizations, which is apparently based on your supposition that the ITU-T and CCITT are “good.” I must beg to differ.
As an algorithm developer for sat-comm systems, I can flatly state that standards, while helpful in some cases, are the primary reason technology progresses as slowly as it does. Yes, in spite of hoi palloi belief that technology is progressing quickly, it is not progressing nearly as quickly as it could, or should, be. As with anything else, when something attempts to be a solution for all, it winds up being a solution for none. Compromises rule standardization processes and nobody ever really gets what they want when there are compromises. In fact, many, if not most, of the best solutions get dropped in order to meet demands for the masses.
Standard organizations are also subject to the same problems of corruption that degrade just about any other body that has power over some aspect over peoples’ lives. Are decisions made based on what’s best for everyone? Or are they made based on what’s best for the chairman’s undisclosed stock portfolio? What about large companies sitting on boards pushing aside ideas from smaller companies? Qualcomm was notorious for this, btw, and I can’t blame them: everyone sitting on the board of a standards organization wants what is best for their own interests, which leads to the compromise situation above.
When competing ideas hit the marketplace, those that are the most successful (or have some “better” aspect) will ultimately become de-facto standards without any help from outside organizations. I have more people on my network, it is faster, cheaper, and more reliable, and you want your network to talk to mine? You’re just going to have to conform to my protocol.
I guess my point is just that maybe letting someone come up with a good idea to solve some of the issues (re: Internet) may be all that is needed, not more regulations and standards bodies that do little but stifle ingenuity. Design by committee rarely works, unless there is only one member, and never works once government is involved, particularly if from more than one country.
Mark

Mark T says: @ May 29, 2012 at 5:45 pm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The lies about treaties and the Constitution can be tracked back to John Foster Dulles.

….The frightful idea that U.S. treaties with foreign nations supercede the Constitution has been regularly promoted since the Eisenhower era.1 It was given a big boost in 1952 when Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, a founding member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), made the following statement:2

… congressional laws are invalid if they do not conform to the Constitution, whereas
treaty laws can override the Constitution. Treaties, for example, can take powers away
from Congress and give them to the President; they can take powers from the states and
give them to the Federal Government, or to some international body and they can cut
across the rights given the people by the Constitutional Bill of Rights.3

2 Dulles actually made this statement during a speech in Louisville on April 2, 1952, shortly before
Eisenhower appointed him Secretary of State.
3 Quoted by Frank E. Holman, Story of the Bricker Amendment, (New York Committee for Constitutional
Government, Inc., 1954), pp. 14, 15.

Ted says:
May 29, 2012 at 6:52 pm
Sorry to be political, but it will only happen if Obama gets anther term, then it’s gloves off for him and his unelected Tzars. The lunatic socialist are are salivating at such a power grab!
_____________________________
I just wish we had something to vote FOR. I do not trust either of the main parties in the USA at this point.

This doesn’t ring true. China and Russia are strongly nationalistic and REALISTIC. Neither would really want to surrender their own internal controls, which are quite effective, to the wildly inefficient UN. Russia understands how the UN works because they built it. This is either a bluff or a false story.

Mark T says May 29, 2012 at 6:05 pm
__Jim: fortunately the “advice and consent” w.r.t. treaties is given a number for approval: two thirds, or 67 Senators. Anything that even smells of stepping on the Constitution is dead before it starts. …

Well anyway notwithstanding specifics on the ‘number’ of senators required for treaty approval (an item not in dispute or contention here), there are other ‘back door’ means and methods by which ‘control’ and protocols are proliferated (presently using RFCs or ‘Request For Comment’ et al) of the internet could be moved to live under the auspices of the ITU … fortunately there are other groups who are vying for power and control over the internet technically (not just politically) and that includes networking-protocol ‘academics’ and the various companies including CISCO and others who are actively engaged in profitably making products for ‘the internet’ and these companies fund trade/lobby groups as well as having on the active payroll technical personnel (often termed “Member Technical Staff” as at TI or ‘associate staff scientist’ or at the least ‘staff expert’ within these companies) who innovate and develop routers and switches and the data transmission equipment who would all stand to lose big time monetarily if the ITU were to be ‘in charge’ of standards and ‘innovating’ at the pace of a snail; after all the ITU did such an outstanding job (/sarc) in prior decades in fostering and advancing telephony e.g. ISDN (not), cellular (not) and after all, they developed the internet (more sarc) …
.

This was interesting. Anyone heard the term smart growth in their community government communications?
Remember the term, “stackem and packem”.
You tell me? Is this type of thing really what was provided from our government to the public, and in particular , injected into the school system.?
To save you a search, here is the link to the pertinent site.http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/

Mark T says:
I think what people are missing is that the Supreme Court of the United States still has jurisdiction over treaties, indeed, it is the sole arbiter of what is considered the supreme law of the land. That is its Constitutional job. Thus, if a treaty otherwise violated rights guaranteed by the Constitution (amendments included), any citizen could file a suit to have it struck down. Furthermore, the Congress can nullify any treaty via law as can any state or states should Congress fail to act (both subject to SCOTUS review as well, of course). Remember, the government of the United States answers to the states.
================================================================
That is how it’s supposed to be but not always as it has actually been. Remember Holder’s answer to the judge that demanded an explanation of Obama’s statement about the Supreme Court not being elected and, implying, they had no right to rule against Obamacare? (Please, no thread-jacking) He said that the Supreme Court has shown deference to Congress in matters related to the Comerce Clause.
Gunga Din’s Translation: The Supreme Court hasn’t always upheld the Constitution and the Comerce Clause has been an excuse frequently used.
Example, the Fed’s jurisdiction over wetlands, even on private property. Wetlands were declared to be a navigatable waterway. Interstate commerce travels on navigatable waterways therefore they fall under fereral jurisdiction therefore the Feds can tell you not to fill in that persistant wet spot in your backyard to build that playhouse for the kids. (You never know when a barge might pass by.)
How much commerce takes place on the internet?

_Jim: no arguments from me. Far more insidious (though easier to overrule as well) are the numerous executive agreements that POTUS can enter into, requiring nothing but his word. Dunno why I used two underscores first time, btw… getting too used to writing CUDA C I guess.
Gail: I think my point was a bit more of a “no, in spite of the screaming from the left, treaties do not trump the Constitution (or any other US law for that matter)” rather than “there’s no way the left can really screw us.” We’re fortunate that, for the most part, our current SCOTUS representation does relatively good by the people of our fair country. In different configurations, even obvious Constitutional protections may not be guarantees. However, I should note that the examples you provide are of our own government taking liberty with our, well, liberties. When the UN gets into the act, which basically gives power to foreign nationals, we are a bit better at protecting our own. Nobody screws us better than ourselves.
Mark

OssQss says on May 29, 2012 at 7:23 pm:
This was interesting. Anyone heard the term smart growth in their community government communications?
Remember the term, “stackem and packem”.
You tell me? Is this type of thing really what was provided from our government to the public, and in particular , injected into the school system.?
“Smart Growth” – another term for ‘row housing’? Only with planned greenery in proximity mandated by govt as opposed to commercial ‘builders’/developers of new neighborhoods.
Will I be able to put up an 80 meter band dipole (128 foot length approx.) on my and my neighbor’s row house, or how about a 16 foot diameter tuned-loop to work the 160 meter band placed out in the ‘commons’ green area? How about working on my car in the garage … oh sorry, cars to be replaced by the ‘rapid-transit’ bus system.
Probably not … so I vote “no”. Owning my own piece of property means my dog or my antenna ‘projects’ can go in my own back yard. Wanna live in the city> GO to the city!
Row house (albeit a nice one):
.

ntesdorf says:
May 29, 2012 at 3:34 pm
Ask the Syrians how well the UN runs peace missions.
Ask anyone who’s had the Blue Hats installed as “peacekeepers” in their country.
I was co-located with a UN mission in Iraq for three years. The only time I saw their vehicles leave their compound was to drive to the chow hall.

James Allison says:
May 29, 2012 at 7:59 pm
“The article is pointless scaremongering on the same level as CAGW. 6.9 Billion internet users would have a different view about central control. It just ain’t gonna happen.”
Every internet router has an interface for intelligence agencies. Different agencies can use these interfaces at the same time without noticing each other.
This requirement has been demanded by US and EU services and has been implemented by the router makers. So, they can’t necessarily decrypt SSL/https packets (assuming they don’t have AES 256 etc cracked already), but they can at any time listen to the unencrypted traffic; and for the encrypted traffic, they can track who communicates with whom. There are simply no routers available on the market without this feature.
Be careful with your assessment of what can or can’t happen.

This absolutely must be defeated.This is Copenhagen on steroids.
These are the the same assholes trying to take power……from us. Conservatives only have power on the internet, with a little on talk radio and Fox.
THEY want to castrate YOU.

Folks, just a smidge OT.
If you haven’t heard or Brett Kimberlin, it’s closely related thematically to this UN story.
It’s a story about a conservative, completely innocent blogger be clapped in jail TODAY, by a lib-funded terrorist.
It’s not an uncomplicated tale, but it’s ethics and morals are plain as day. One of us is in jail. And Stacy McCain and his family had to flee his home-state. Because of this terrorist.http://theothermccain.com/

Mark T says:
May 29, 2012 at 7:46 pm
………………………..in spite of the screaming from the left, treaties do not trump the Constitution (or any other US law for that matter)” rather than “there’s no way the left can really screw us.” We’re fortunate that, for the most part, our current SCOTUS representation does relatively good by the people of our fair country.
——————-
Bear in mind the next POTUS will most likely pick one or two new SCJs. I believe our youngest is somewhere over 75 years old.
Where will that leave the left?

DirkH says on May 29, 2012 at 9:03 pm
James Allison says:
May 29, 2012 at 7:59 pm
“The article is pointless scaremongering on the same level as CAGW. 6.9 Billion internet users would have a different view about central control. It just ain’t gonna happen.”
Every internet router has an interface for intelligence agencies

Can you cite a specific example?
Can you cite an RFC that gives port numbers or explains this interface?
A long time ago now (the 1st Clinton era) CALEA for instance specified how voice telecommunications gear was to provide access to LE agencies … it is a simple matter otherwise to route desired traffic to/from one port to another for inspection/observation shall we say … CALEA, too, has since been ‘upgraded’ to encompass internet-based technologies as it relates to LE access, but the question for something specific still stands.
CALEA – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act
.

Mike Busby says: (May 29, 2012 at 3:56 pm) “Meh, I give it 25 minutes after the announcement for some kid in China/Tawian/Hong Kong/Russia/Tasmania to create a bypass. …”
Would very much like to believe that, Mike… but a bypass on what? The internet?

…A world-wide standardisation of the internet would remove all such competition, and it would require a world-wide agreement before any change could be adopted.
The internet as we know it would not have been developed and adopted as it is if this standardisation had existed from the internet’s start…

The irony here is that the internet works so well largely because it is standardized – the agreed standards such as TCPIP, HTTP and HTML are behind the ability to visit pretty well any web site and read the information there. An internet without standards would be a Tower of Babel.
The question at issue is how to arrive at the agreed standards…

“The question at issue is how to arrive at the agreed standards…”
The same way we got HTTP and HTML. Someone invents some neat stuff and when it turns out to be useful, it becomes a standard.
The ITU had its idea of how global networking should work: it’s called ATM. It basically tried to push telephony technology onto a global network so you had to ‘set up a call’ to each server you wanted to talk to in a similar manner to how you’d set up a telephone call. You’ve probably never heard of it because it was a disaster; it’s now primarily used to provide DSL connections from your home to your ISP, where the concept does work because you’re not connecting to six different servers to request a single file via HTTP in order to display a web page.
We don’t want the ITU anywhere near fundamental Internet protocols or management; when all you know is telephony, every protocol looks like a telephone call.

I have thought for some time now that the UN has outlived its usefulness, turning from an organization that was simply meant to help keep the peace into a vast international bureaucracy run by a handful of power-hungry tyrants who seek to establish some kind of world government. Time for us to pull out of this useless organization and send it to Brussels, where they seem to like bureaucracy more.

It never ceases to amaze me how many Americans read “UN” and their brains switch off. The ITU is an example of an very early “public-private-partnership” and basically all the big telcos call the shots there – the same telcos that want to get rid of net neutrality. So the threat is real, but it comes from private corporations, not some self-aware international body bent on destroying the USA.

Nick in Vancouver: an old joke on the lines of your post.
Heaven: The chefs are French, mechanics are German, lovers are Italian, and the policemen are English.
Hell: The chefs are German, mechanics are Italian, lovers are English, and the police are French.

Yep, George Orwell was very prophetic. I live in the country to keep away from those cameras of which we have more than any other country per head of population, the UK.
Stupid, stupid idea. The UN should be disbanded not made more powerful.

Politeia – No. Old Greek Polis-City State, and a written constitution. The existing one that controls the United States says no no no. There is due process for change. The yes yes that this constitution proclaims are very limited. Is it anachronism of the Constitution?
A City State-UN perhaps, now at Turdle Bay, New York, New York.

Tony Mach, individual countries are leading the charge on this. Are you saying that big companies rule these countries? Pretty big assumption there with no evidence. Either that, or you are talking about something different then the article above. Stay on topic. We are talking about giving “MORE control ” and how several countries are leading the charge.
Why are these countries leading the charge? There is some argument on this, but its rather simple. If a country likes central control and often uses censorship, they would love anything that would make this easier for them to control the internet. If the ITU can be used to make it simpler and to adopt standards that require all information to be parsed easier….well that means that central control does not mean that these individual countries give up power over their own internets, far from it. I also highly doubt that China (or others) would push for something that would allow more information through.
I guess in the end it comes down to two choices:
Do we want an organization of the UN having the power to decide things for us in the neighborhood of standards and such?
Or does the internet work fine like it is.
I really don’t see the point in controlling things centrally since history teaches us that everytime that is tried it works worse then the alternative.

This is a horrific idea. At least they need a 2/3 vote in the Senate to ratify any treaties and the Dems only hold a one vote majority. I have a hard time thinking they will get enough Reps on board to do this even in a lame duck session if they all get bounced after the Nov. elections. There’s no logical basis to think the Reps would because the Reps would be looking at a new, incoming majority to go with a majority in the other house and an incoming president. They wouldn’t want to risk public goodwill on something like this, and any one of these treaties would be enormously unpopular, any one of them, but particularly this one. Now, if things go horrendously wrong, and the Dems get re-elected with strong majorities, all bets are off.

“I really don’t see the point in controlling things centrally since history teaches us that everytime that is tried it works worse then the alternative.”
All the big problems of the Internet; DNS, number allocation, SSL certificates, etc, are due to centralisation. With IPV6, for example, every telco on the planet could just pick a random 64-bit prefix with almost no chance of a collision… and then still give 4 billion IP addresses to each of their customers with no chance of running out any time soon.
The great thing about the IP standard is that you can do so much with it yet it does so little. All it provides is a means of requesting that your network try to send some data from one machine to another, and from that you can build just about anything you want, other than the kind of protocols the ITU love.
“What? You want to send data to another machine but don’t care whether it gets there? You don’t have quality of service guarantees? You can’t bill it? You can’t tell the network which route to take? A protocol that doesn’t work like a telephone call? Are you insane?”
If the ITU had built the Internet, not only would you have to specify the precise bandwidth for every connection even if you didn’t then use it, but most of the protocol spec would cover billing, so they could bill you by the byte, by the second and by the mile. Multi-billion dollar Internet companies would not exist, because the technology would make them unaffordable… most of the money would be going to the telcos.
I’m guessing the ITU are struggling to find something to justify their existence because no-one cares about telephony any more; just yesterday I was talking to one of our customers who wants to stop using the PSTN links to our systems and start using VOIP instead. Pretty soon all ‘telephone’ calls will be going over the Internet and the old PSTN system will only remain in a few backward countries where the telco is preventing widespread Internet access.

Can we just stop funding these idiots, the UN. It would not exist but for our money. I remember 40+ years ago, coming across a billboard , “Get the US Out of the UN!”. It seemed a strange concept then, I had not yet heard of the sponsors, the John Birch Society. Their motto, IIRC, was/is, “Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.”

Chuck Nolan says:
May 29, 2012 at 10:03 pm
Mark T says:
May 29, 2012 at 7:46 pm
………………………..in spite of the screaming from the left, treaties do not trump the Constitution (or any other US law for that matter)” rather than “there’s no way the left can really screw us.” We’re fortunate that, for the most part, our current SCOTUS representation does relatively good by the people of our fair country.
——————-
Bear in mind the next POTUS will most likely pick one or two new SCJs. I believe our youngest is somewhere over 75 years old.
Where will that leave the left?
__________________________________
People keep saying “the Left” and “the Right” Dr Evans at Jo Nova’s had it nailed there is no “Left and Right” there is the Regulating Class and the rest of us who are to be controlled so we pay and pay and pay.
Have you ever known a Republican Admin. to reframe from passing laws and instead devote it’s self to repealing a bunch of useless laws passed by the previous Democrats??? HMMmmm?
I rest my case.

International Harmonization
The harmonization of laws, regulations and standards between and among trading partners is important to food safety and requires intense, complex, time-consuming negotiations by CFSAN officials. Harmonization must simultaneously facilitate international trade and promote mutual understanding, while protecting national interests and establishing a basis to resolve food issues on sound scientific evidence in an objective atmosphere. Failure to reach a consistent, harmonized set of laws, regulations and standards within the free trade agreements and the World Trade Organization Agreements can result in considerable economic repercussions.
Codex Alimentarius Commission
The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC), created in 1963, is an intergovernmental body with over 170 members within the framework of the Joint Food Standards Programme established by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO)…..
The Codex Alimentarius,…. is a collection of internationally adopted food standards, guidelines, codes of practice and other recommendations and is the major international mechanism for encouraging fair international trade in food while promoting the health and economic interest of consumers…. http://www.fda.gov/Food/InternationalActivities/ucm103013.htm

FROM THE WTO.org WEBSITE

RESEARCH PAPER THE WIPO-WTO COLLOQUIUM FOR TEACHERS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (2010)
Compiled by the World Trade Organization – Intellectual Property Division
The WIPO-WTO Colloquium for Teachers of Intellectual Property (IP) has become a central feature of the burgeoning cooperation between the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) on practical capacity building. The course grew from the recognition that the developmental benefits from the intellectual property system can only be reaped through skilled adaptation to national circumstances and judicious use by informed practitioners….

* Legal reforms must be shaped by developmental objectives, industrial policy and strategic economic interest….* There is a need for the harmonization of laws and regulatory frameworks to facilitate South- South cooperation. For example, South Africa has not taken full advantage of the flexibilities available to it through the TRIPS Agreement for exporting larger volumes of essential generic medicines to other African countries. This has been due to factors such as the lack of licences, inadequate domestic legal frameworks in most target African countries, and the incompatibility of the regulations of specific domestic systems.
* There must be a deliberate policy to safeguard TRIPS flexibilities when negotiating bilateral and regional FTAs. This may be done through regional frameworks

General Assembly of the United Nations
General Assembly Interactive Thematic Debate
on
The rule of law and global challenges
“Promoting universal adherence to and implementation of the rule of law at the national and international levels”
11 April 2011, New YorkKey questions:
In what ways can the rule of law contribute to social and economic justice, economic growth and sustainable development?What is the contribution of harmonization of investment protection and trade laws to achieving economic growth?
How will rule of law assistance, including through harmonization of laws, regulations and effective law enforcement cooperation across borders help combat transnational challenges and further sustainable development?
How can rule of law programming in developing countries better take into account local needs and realities, and ensure local participation and ownership?
What can be done to integrate rule of law in the development agenda in a more coordinated, coherent and consistent manner?
How can the support from the international community to addressing transnational challenges and strengthening rule of law and development be more coordinated, coherent and predictable?….http://www.un.org/en/ga/president/65/initiatives/ruleoflaw.shtml

Mike Busby says:
May 29, 2012 at 3:56 pm
Oh and would that would mean that the UN would be ultimately responisble for all porn/gambling/Nigerian Scams/Dating agencies/Facebook/Twitter/betting/forums/illegal file sharing and phoney medicine pushers on the Interwebs?. Good, finally we can track them down and sue the pants off them.
Oh no, The UN is very careful to add disclaimers to absolutely everything they do to completely remove their liability for any of their mistakes. There’s no way you could EVER sue them, for ANYTHING. They are quite literally above the law. Have you heard about their New York employees ripping up any parking tickets they get? They cannot be prosecuted, they all have complete immunity. It is quite disturbing really.

IGF 2012 (Internet Governance Forum)
The Seventh Annual IGF Meeting will be held in Baku, Azerbaijan from 6-9 November 2012. The proposed main theme for the meeting is: ‘Internet Governance for Sustainable Human, Economic and Social Development’.
Read all about it:http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2011/book/IGF_2010_Book.pdf
Message by Sha Zukang
“United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs
The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was established by the World Summit of the
Information Society in 2006. Since then, it has become the leading global multistakeholder
forum on public policy issues related to Internet governance. The value and importance of the IGF has been increasingly recognized in recent years. In 2010, the United Nations General Assembly extended the IGF’s mandate for another five years, as recommended by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Ban Ki-Moon.”
A Special Advisor to Ban KI-Moon on Internet governance and chair of the Advisory Group that organises the annual UN Internet Governance Forum, is Mr. Nitin Desai. He is an Honorary Fellow of the London School of Economics from whence comes Lord Nicholas Stern and a former Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations from 1997 to 2003.
In India, he is a colleague of IPCC chairman Dr Pachauri, as a “Distinguished Visiting Fellow” at The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) and advises the Indian Government on its national climate change action plan.
Much more background on what the UN is doing behind our backs with the connivance of our politicians can be found at these links:
The United (Nations) States Environmental Protection Agencyhttp://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/the_un_states_epa.html
UN Agenda 21 Will Rule The US Waveshttp://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/un_agenda_21_will_rule_us_waves.html
United Socialist Nationshttp://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/un_progress_governance_via_climate_change.htmlhttp://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/lisa_p_jackson_epa_administrator_fulfilling_the_un_mission.html

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on WUWT. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. This notice is required by recently enacted EU GDPR rules, and since WUWT is a globally read website, we need to keep the bureaucrats off our case!OkPrivacy policy